Michael Jacques, who is accused of abducting his niece, Brooke Bennett, was ordered held until his trial on a federal kidnapping charge. His attorney, Michael Desautels, did not ask U.S. Magistrate-Judge Jerome Niedermeier to release Jacques.

Preliminary reports from Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Nolan has stated that 12 year old Brooke Bennett’s death has been ruled a homicide. The exact cause of the homicide will be determined upon final autopsy results.

Nolan said Brooke’s death was a homicide, but he didn’t say how she was killed. No one has been charged with her death. State police say it could take eight weeks before autopsy results are available.

Jacques could face the death penalty if convicted under federal law of kidnapping resulting in Brooke’s death.

Prosecutors say Jacques, 42, abducted Brooke on June 25. After a weeklong search, she was found buried about a mile from his home in Randolph, about 50 miles southeast of Burlington.

More information in the disappearance and death of a Randolph pre-teen. New charges against Brooke Bennett’s former step-father — Ray Gagnon — released Monday, in his former home-state of Alabama — for child porn. And uncle Michael Jacques was officially arraigned on federal kidnapping charges.

A friend of mine who has spent her life in the police force of a certain Southern state says she thinks that the feds made a deal with Gagnon’s landlord … he says what he knows, in return for which he gets off with no charges.

I hadn’t thought of this, but my friend knows the ins and outs of how police work. It makes sense to me that they wanted the big fish (at least, the one most in the public eye).

Certainly, to me, the role of the landlord in San Antonio, who rented a room to Gagnon, seems worthy of more investigation. Would any normal adult get a call at 3 am from a tenant, hear that the tenant wanted him to go get rid of a safe in the tenant’s room, and not think that something was seriously wrong?

brie. on
July 8th, 2008 8:39 am

Richard….it does matter, I feel the same way, she looks totally loopy…..there is much to investigate in everyone that had a place in Brook’s life….sick people involving their children in porno for a profit…..

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is used to dealing with real men in black as he oversees the federal judiciary. But since childhood, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman also has been fanatic about the fictitious black-caped crusader who metes out his own brand of vigilante justice.

Leahy’s love of Batman has reached new heights. Not only did the senator secure a cameo role in “The Dark Knight” — the latest Batman film, which hits theaters July 18 — he also has coaxed Warner Bros. into premiering the flick at a fundraising gala in his home town of Montpelier, Vt., instead of L.A. or New York.

The event is July 12, two full days before the big Hollywood premier.

On his way to votes last week, Leahy bragged to On the Hill that the event may raise $100,000 for the Kellogg-Hubbard Library, where a children’s wing is named in his honor. He said the town is abuzz, with 350 tickets having sold at $50 apiece. Leahy is donating his pay for the film appearance to the library, which also will get a big lift from a variety of corporate sponsors.

Since the Judiciary chairman is hosting the event, Warner Bros. chairman and chief executive Barry Meyer will be on hand. It does not appear as if any of the lead actors, including Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, will be there. Heath Ledger, who plays the Joker, died in January after most of the filming was done.

Leahy’s part, his third Batman cameo, is still something of a secret. It is small enough that he’s not listed among the more than 80 actors who receive credits on the movie Web site IMDB.com.

But you can see him in one of the movie trailers currently running on the film’s Web site. That’s the distinguished senator from Vermont being roughed up by the Joker’s henchman in a scene shot last July in a Chicago restaurant.

brenda on
July 9th, 2008 8:31 am

I have not seen Jacque’s wife, but soley based on a statement she made on Nancy Grace (which left Grace speechless for a moment…which is RARE) I am convinced she knew hubby was still a total perv and practicing something illegal of a sexual manner.

What she said was (and I am paraphrasing) “she hoped her daughter’s disappearance was not due to an ongoing thing, but was a spur of the moment thing.” She made it clear her concern was something may have been going on with her daughter for a while.

She needs to go to jail to and have what kids are left in her home removed.

brenda on
July 9th, 2008 8:33 am

oh, and by the way, I read the Nancy Grace transcripts…didn’t watch that night. If I get time at work today I’ll find the statement and paste it in here for you guys.

Also, I do pray they find that safe. If in the landfill, they ought to be able. If someone saw it and took it from the dumpster, they may be afraid to come forward.

I hope Vermont voters will take note of this recent horror and elect some less liberal politicians, Vermont has become a pedophilia haven.

two words on
July 10th, 2008 6:49 am

death penalty

brenda on
July 10th, 2008 8:48 am

Anne, you are not the first to put that description on VT being a pedophile state.

misskatie on
July 10th, 2008 9:59 pm

brie
her mother should be held responsible for allowing her daughter to be anywhere near her sister and her husband.. how could she be so trusting… did she think that something like that could not happen to her… I say she is stupid not naive!! I hope she spends the rest of her life with the memory of her daughters death.. she could of been more observant…

there had to be some kind of sign come on …. no ones that naive…. she married a guy that had his eyes on her daughter….

what kind of parent is she….

Angel on
July 25th, 2008 1:35 pm

wow. whoever above me.. misskatie or whatever… you have no idea. you didn’t know Brooke or her family. So don’t you dare go around saying shit. You obviously don’t know how it feels to read stuff bashing the family of your best friend who was just killed. You didn’t know that her mom wouldn’t let Brooke over there without another parent being there did you? she had no reason the believe brooke would be hurt with her sister being there, her sister isn’t a pedophile! AND michael jaques was let out for good behavior and was considered not a risk, so she had no reason to believe Brooke was in danger. But i will not stress enough that her mom didn’t let her go over there without an adult.. the only reason she was there that day was because she lied!! so dont say shit like that, because you have no idea who it effects! please, keep your rude comments to yourself, and don’t be so damn impulsive.